As im sure many if not all of us are aware during world war two the allies relentlessly pounded German/Japanese cities and industrial targets day and night throughout the course of the war leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions wounded and homeless, the question i put to you is do you think this policy of bombing targets out of existance was worth it in the long run and was ethical? the prime examples drawing the most fire being the fire bombing of the city of Dresdon and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
heres just a few loose figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...939.E2.80.9345
so yes whats your view on the policies of the allies and inparticular Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris?

Unfortunately, it was. GB couldn't sit back when Germany bombed us, and the main targets were the factories and (unfortunately) the workers :/ If it wasn't for bombing, civilian morale wouldn't have collapsed in Germany and other pro-nazi countries so, in the long run, it was for the best. But its still sad it really wasn't that long ago

(Original post by concubine)
As I have no idea what the outcome of not carrying it out would have been I'm going to go with 'undecided'. Which is really the only sensible answer.

It was, of course, 'inhumane'. Wars are always inhumane.

What I do find odd is that all of the people that are totally against the use of atomic weapons in WW2 can't seem to grasp is that the alternative was basically going to be a continuation of this.

I'm a firm believer that the atomic bombs saved lives.

aye whilst it was undoubedly horrific i agree with you that it was the lesser of two evils and in the long run almost certainly saved more lives than it cost ... the ends did justify the means in this case.

(Original post by concubine)
As I have no idea what the outcome of not carrying it out would have been I'm going to go with 'undecided'. Which is really the only sensible answer.

It was, of course, 'inhumane'. Wars are always inhumane.

What I do find odd is that all of the people that are totally against the use of atomic weapons in WW2 can't seem to grasp is that the alternative was basically going to be a continuation of this.

I'm a firm believer that the atomic bombs saved lives.

Well no you're wrong there as Japan had offered unconditional surrender to America through Portugal but America explicitly said "Don't relay any information from Japan"

Japan initially offered surrender but not under the condition the Emperor was touched, they later reconciled this, due to well the premise this topic is around; Japan had no air force and America was systematically decimating Japan. By the time Japan accepted unconditional surrender, America followed it's ultimate intention; to test out the capability of the Atomic bomb. The best part? They kept the Emperor unscathed anyway as they knew they would need him in order to keep civil unrest at a minimum, so no the Atomic bombings were not needed at all.

And the allied bombing of cities was particularly more calculated than that of Axis bombings; the Axis bombings usually targeted military areas and/or buildings, the Allied forces just wanted to commit huge attrition losses.

The bombing in Dresden within the last months of the War is of particular note to be perhaps, the most atrocious war crime of the entire war (par the atomic bombings) Allied forces claimed Dresden was an important military city and had trade routes via rail, however they left most of the rail untouched and outside of the city, military buildings also untouched. The death toll was all civilian and estimated to be around 25,000.

I've really digressed. My opinion on it was that both sides were equal in disproportionate bombing of civilian areas, but figures show rather infamously that the Allied bombings were more "efficient" couple that with the atomic bombings, I find it rather hard to digest the notion that we were the "good guys" also as was evidenced, the bombing of civilian areas did not cause the Nazi regime to surrender, only near total defeat did, so it was rather needless.

I think it was wrong. It achieved nothing and the allies knew it achieved nothing. However its easy to sit here in a safe secure country with no fear of invasion and condemn the only way they felt they could strike back.

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
I've really digressed. My opinion on it was that both sides were equal in disproportionate bombing of civilian areas, but figures show rather infamously that the Allied bombings were more "efficient" couple that with the atomic bombings, I find it rather hard to digest the notion that we were the "good guys" also as was evidenced, the bombing of civilian areas did not cause the Nazi regime to surrender, only near total defeat did, so it was rather needless.

Easy to say it didn't work with the benefit of hindsight, but contempary opinion on both sides was that terror bombing would eventually force the other to capitulate.

You can actually see how our policies became more and more inhumane as the war escalated, at the beginning of the war the RAF were strictly forbidden from hitting German targets due to the risk of civilian deaths, as the Nazis became more aggressive we responded in kind. Think the phrase "the longer you stare at evil and desperation the more it consumes you" is very relevant here and we were literally at war for the world and we had to win, whatever the cost.

I think Sir Harris deserves recognition and thanks for his service and dedication to the war effort, he did what was deemed necessary even if in hindsight it might seem brutal and unnecessary we were at war, a real war and if we lost i dread to think what humanity would be like today.

(Original post by cl_steele)
As im sure many if not all of us are aware during world war two the allies relentlessly pounded German/Japanese cities and industrial targets day and night throughout the course of the war leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions wounded and homeless, the question i put to you is do you think this policy of bombing targets out of existance was worth it in the long run and was ethical? the prime examples drawing the most fire being the fire bombing of the city of Dresdon and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
heres just a few loose figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...939.E2.80.9345
so yes whats your view on the policies of the allies and inparticular Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris?

Firebombing of tokyo too. They werent just aimed at industry. Creating firestorms was a deliberate tactic aimed at spreading fear.

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
You can actually see how our policies became more and more inhumane as the war escalated, at the beginning of the war the RAF were strictly forbidden from hitting German targets due to the risk of civilian deaths, as the Nazis became more aggressive we responded in kind. Think the phrase "the longer you stare at evil and desperation the more it consumes you" is very relevant here and we were literally at war for the world and we had to win, whatever the cost.

I think Sir Harris deserves recognition and thanks for his service and dedication to the war effort, he did what was deemed necessary even if in hindsight it might seem brutal and unnecessary we were at war, a real war and if we lost i dread to think what humanity would be like today.

I think by that point of the war there was an element of hatred behind some allied actions. Perhaps understandable hatred but actions motivated by hatred are seldom good or right. So i disagree. The war could have been ended without deliberately bombing civilians.

True. The whole thing wouldve been avoided if we'd been fair at key junctures. Not expected japan to accept a "second rate country" status because the idea of racial equality didnt suit us and not blamed germany for a war that was as much our fault as theirs. Thats the saddest thing.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Easy to say it didn't work with the benefit of hindsight, but contempary opinion on both sides was that terror bombing would eventually force the other to capitulate.

If we were discussing their motives of; you might have had a point, but I still disagree due to the fact both sides chose to neglect military and industrial compounds further along the timeline of the war and just bombed civilian areas.

Morally wrong yet necessary. There is no space for morality in a total war such as WW2 and acting nice would not have encouraged the enemy towards being so. In the end both sides are fully aware of the how horrible an episode it was for either side and hopefully we don't have to get ourselves into such a mess ever again, because if we do then we simply don't deserve to exist any more as a species.

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
You can actually see how our policies became more and more inhumane as the war escalated, at the beginning of the war the RAF were strictly forbidden from hitting German targets due to the risk of civilian deaths, as the Nazis became more aggressive we responded in kind. Think the phrase "the longer you stare at evil and desperation the more it consumes you" is very relevant here and we were literally at war for the world and we had to win, whatever the cost.

I think Sir Harris deserves recognition and thanks for his service and dedication to the war effort, he did what was deemed necessary even if in hindsight it might seem brutal and unnecessary we were at war, a real war and if we lost i dread to think what humanity would be like today.

He's burried about 5 miles from my house, someone is always laying a new wreath on his headstone. At least theres a little recognition

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
You can actually see how our policies became more and more inhumane as the war escalated, at the beginning of the war the RAF were strictly forbidden from hitting German targets due to the risk of civilian deaths, as the Nazis became more aggressive we responded in kind. Think the phrase "the longer you stare at evil and desperation the more it consumes you" is very relevant here and we were literally at war for the world and we had to win, whatever the cost.

I think Sir Harris deserves recognition and thanks for his service and dedication to the war effort, he did what was deemed necessary even if in hindsight it might seem brutal and unnecessary we were at war, a real war and if we lost i dread to think what humanity would be like today.

Completely agree.

Alternatives should always be sought, but at the end of the day it was a World war against one of the most evil regimes imaginable. The consequences of losing are too great, and in situations like that the ends almost always justify the means.

If we were discussing their motives of; you might have had a point, but I still disagree due to the fact both sides chose to neglect military and industrial compounds further along the timeline of the war and just bombed civilian areas.

You were basing your judgement on the fact that it didn't even get Germany to surrender. That's my point. At the time they thought it would.